A recent Austin-American Statesman
review of Neo-Con Philip Bobbitt's new book Terror and Consent
features an image of a shredded Constitution under the words "Everything
must go," which acts as a suitable entrée to a disgusting
diatribe which praises Bobbitt's call for the end of America and its replacement
with a de facto world government in the name of fighting terror.

The words, "How to Fight Terrorism"
are in place of a torn piece of the Bill of Rights.

Reviewer
James E. McWilliams describes Bobbitt as "a distinguished lecturer
and senior fellow at the University of Texas and a law professor at Columbia
University," but anyone with a basic grasp of what America's founders
envisioned and what Ronald Reagan later termed the "shining city
on a hill" would be more apt to describe Bobbitt - nephew of Lyndon
Baines Johnson and former State Department counselor - as an enemy of
the Republic.

McWilliams' fawning review of the book is
intended to sucker in millionaire pseudo-intellectuals who think they
are part of the elite by using mental gymnastics and brazenly contradictory
statements in order to justifying the revolting underlying premise of
the book.

As soon as we learn that the facade of Bobbitt's
argument is to provide a solution "for fighting the wars that are
bound to plague the 21st century," we're already safe in the knowledge
that Bobbitt represents another chicken-necked warhawk who has already
claimed ownership of the next 10 decades for his Neo-Con ideological fetish
of imperial bloodletting and brutal domination.

So what exactly is Bobbitt's solution?

The complete obliteration of sovereignty
and the nation state and its replacement with a new "order that takes
its structural cues from multinational corporations and nongovernmental
organizations" that will have the power to pursue "more aggressive
tactics of preclusionary warfare," meaning more pre-emptive invasions
of broken-backed third world countries to expand the creaking pax-Americana
empire.

Despite terse and contradictory promises
that we will still have some semblance of freedom in Bobbitt's technocracy,
he admits that there will be "no obvious answer to many of the human
rights issues that are bound to arise," as a result of his plan to
completely eviscerate God-given freedoms enumerated in the Constitution
and Bill of Rights.

The reviewer cites Bobbitt's justification
to impose world government as a means of combating,"The accessibility
of weapons of mass destruction, the globalization of international capital
and the "universalization of culture" have eroded the conventional
borders that once legitimated national security," all problems that
were created by globalists' drive to impose centralized systems of control
in the first place by creating crises and then posing as the saviors.

This is another classic example of problem-reaction-solution.
Use the pretext of the problems you have created to then offer a solution
that befits your ultimate agenda - global government.

"Bobbitt believes that the UN Charter
should be amended to allow the preemptive use of force without a Security
Council authorization," and "In cases in which the use of non-lethal
chemical weapons could be used to prevent terror, be able to redefine
such methods as "counterforce measures," writes McWilliams.

The "use of chemical weapons,"
where have we heard that one before?

It was Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William
Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Neo-Con collaborators that
formed the Project
For a New American Century - the ideological framework of the Bush
administration, who proposed the use of "...advanced forms of biological
warfare that can target specific genotypes (which) may transform biological
warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

Since Bobbitt cites "non-lethal chemical
weapons" as a means of "preventing terror" what exactly
does he mean? Mass-medicating Americans' drinking water with sodium fluoride
to keep the population docile and subservient to the new international
order, absent of traditional constitutional rights, that Bobbitt seeks
to impose? The vagueness of the reference suggests Bobbitt and in turn
the simpering reviewer McWilliams are attempting to carefully dance around
the true scale of the horror that they are advocating.

Mandating a false choice between the acceptance
of terrorism as a routine cancer upon society or the imposition of a brutal
warmongering world government and the obliteration of sovereignty and
the constitution, the book advises us to progress, "not by choosing
good over bad, but — as is usually the case in war and politics
— the lesser of evils."

And the lesser of evils in this case is
to allow Bobbitt and his salivating Neo-Con cronies to have their way
with the 21st century while they posture and insist their global government
is our savior against a terrorist threat that they created in the first
place.

As Bobbitt would no doubt agree with the
CFR's Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the globalists are "not going to achieve
a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and
money," and as H.G. Wells proclaimed, "Countless people... will
hate the new world order... and will die protesting against it... When
we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress
of a generation or so of malcontents..."

We are those "malcontents" that
the globalists fear so much, we are the representation of everything that
is good about the human spirit - love, hope, the yearning for freedom
and a kindred bond with our fellow man, along with the shared promise
of a peaceful and prosperous future for our children.

Bobbitt and the rest of the Neo-Con turds
who have already decided to condemn us to a century of warfare, tyranny,
and centralized control may be surprised to learn that the resistance
to their agenda is accelerating and that the true essence of humanity,
the "malcontents," will rise up and condemn them to the only
place they belong - on the scrapheap of history.